Rev 4772: I think I know where things are going wrong, at least with tuple concatenation. in http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~jameinel/bzr/2.1-static-tuple-btree-string-intern

[John Arbash Meinel]

At http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~jameinel/bzr/2.1-static-tuple-btree-string-intern

------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 4772
revision-id: john at arbash-meinel.com-20091012220423-zhf08uf178gwqwog
parent: john at arbash-meinel.com-20091012211032-6haj8mm2gmk0t4wk
committer: John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com>
branch nick: 2.1-static-tuple-btree-string-intern
timestamp: Mon 2009-10-12 17:04:23 -0500
message:
  I think I know where things are going wrong, at least with tuple concatenation.
  
  However, of the 800+ failing tests on PQM, I can't reproduce the failures here (yet)
-------------- next part --------------
=== modified file 'bzrlib/repository.py'
--- a/bzrlib/repository.py	2009-10-08 22:53:13 +0000
+++ b/bzrlib/repository.py	2009-10-12 22:04:23 +0000
@@ -4319,6 +4319,13 @@
                 ):
                 if versioned_file is None:
                     continue
+                # TODO: key is often going to be a StaticTuple object
+                #       I don't believe we can define a method by which
+                #       (prefix,) + StaticTuple will work, though we could
+                #       define a StaticTuple.sq_concat that would allow you to
+                #       pass in either a tuple or a StaticTuple as the second
+                #       object, so instead we could have:
+                #       StaticTuple(prefix) + key here...
                 missing_keys.update((prefix,) + key for key in
                     versioned_file.get_missing_compression_parent_keys())
         except NotImplementedError: